[Bro Izzy]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Don't forget the Catholic's never condemned Hitler
Here are some Catholic Bishops giving the Nazi salute in honor of Hitler


The Concordat between the Vatican and the Nazis

Cardinal Secretary of State, Eugenio Pacelli (later to become Pope Pius XII) signed the Concordat between Nazi Germany and the Vatican at a formal ceremony in Rome on 20 July 1933.

The Concordat effectively legitimized Hitler and the Nazi government to the eyes of Catholicism.

[Brother McGregor]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Brother Izzy as I live and breath!!
Welcome welcome

[sinner]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Sorry, brothers and sisters, I know I'm coming in kind of late into the conversation but I wanted to point out that not mentioned in the original post was Sin #12: the wearing of skirts by men of the cloth. As we true Christians know, skirts are reserved only for our women to wear to church, when cooking, cleaning, mending our socks, mowing the lawn, milking the cows, washing our feet, etc. etc. - Oh, and also by those faggot Scotts...

________________________



"Lotus 6-6-6 - Spreadsheet of the Beast"

[Priestess Avalon]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

u forgot that priests all over the world are accuse of sexual intercourse with kids, and this in every religions or most!

[Sister Carol J. Paul]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

you are right, but it doesn't matter which false religion abuses kids or likes Hitler, the only fact is, that all these false religions, catlicks, wiccans, muslims or whatever do this, exept us true believers. but the catholics are still the worst. They are not allowed to have a wife. Therefore they rape children.

[Brother Temperance]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

u forgot that priests all over the world are accuse of sexual intercourse with kids, and this in every religions or most!

Yes, this is one of the reasons why we don't have priests.

you are right, but it doesn't matter which false religion abuses kids or likes Hitler, the only fact is, that all these false religions, catlicks, wiccans, muslims or whatever do this, exept us true believers. but the catholics are still the worst. They are not allowed to have a wife. Therefore they rape children.

Good point. The Pope forbids his worshippers to get married because Catholics hate family values.

[bartholomew]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Some of the comments on these threads are kind of out of left field. A majority of the misconceptions of the Catholic Church are due to lack of knowledge. A lot of Catholic tradtion comes for Jewish tradition, which yes, Jesus was Jewish and grew up with the same traditions. He is the new convenant. The first Christians kept these traditions along with new ones; like communion, the breaking of the bread just as Christ had said to do. Saints are not worshiped, they are honored. When we ask for a Saint to pray for us to the Lord, it is the same as when you ask a family member or friend to pray for you, and one thing just about all denominations of Christianity hold in common is the communion of saints (read into it). I could go on and on about misconceptions. My point here is not to convert anyone, but just ask for tolerance. I study scripture and pray with friends of other denominations (protestant and born again). Luke 9:49, Jesus says it all right there. Please just be a little more tolerant and if you actually disagree with a teaching read into it and not just read blogger's information, its often copy and pasted from another half-true source.

[ForGodsSake]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Some of the comments on these threads are kind of out of left field. A majority of the misconceptions of the Catholic Church are due to lack of knowledge.

Lack of knowledge of what. That the catlics have killed more people in history, That more and more priests are going to jail for committing unthinkable acts against their supposedly protected flock. That the church itself had been implicated in more dealings with heathen scum of the world. And instead of their religious scummy values they just jump on with the next power to be so as to benefit in a financial way. Their nothing but heathen killing pigs. Their the ones shining the outside of the cup, their the ones as described as being guilty for the spilt blood of Gods prophets....I can go on >>>>>

[Born Again Bob]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Dear Friend,

Luke 9:49, Jesus says it all right there.

Jesus doesn't speak in Luke 9:49.

See if you can get a refund on that Catholic education, friend.

Yours in Him,
bab

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

Here are some Catholic Bishops giving the Nazi salute in honor of Hitler

When the Spirit moves us, we True Christians(TM) raise our hands to the Lord, and it looks a lot like this. In this photo, however, seeing as they're Catholics, you're probably right, it was the Nazi salute and not a manifestation of a desire to be close to God.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

A majority of the misconceptions of the Catholic Church are due to lack of knowledge.

That's true. The Catholic priests try to keep their flock from reading the Bible, which leads to numerous misconceptions.

The first Christians kept these traditions along with new ones; like communion, the breaking of the bread just as Christ had said to do.

Christ did not teach that the bread was literally his flesh, or that only bread blessed by a priest was worthy of Christian fellowship.

Saints are not worshiped, they are honored. When we ask for a Saint to pray for us to the Lord, it is the same as when you ask a family member or friend to pray for you, and one thing just about all denominations of Christianity hold in common is the communion of saints (read into it).

Hail Mary, full of grace, blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus. Repeat 50 times. Yeah, that sounds like the way I ask my family to pray for me. Not.

My point here is not to convert anyone, but just ask for tolerance. I study scripture and pray with friends of other denominations (protestant and born again).

The Catholic church condemns things it considers to be sinful all the time. If a Catholic woman marries a Jewish man with the understanding the children will be raised Jewish, the church will not marry them. Such intolerance! Please drop the hypocrasy; we at Landover are simply condemning those things that we believe are sinful, just like you do. Only difference is that we are right.

Luke 9:49, Jesus says it all right there. Please just be a little more tolerant and if you actually disagree with a teaching read into it and not just read blogger's information, its often copy and pasted from another half-true source.

Luke 9:49 doesn't quote Jesus (I forgive you, however, since I know your church tries to keep you from studying the Bible), so I think you meant Luke 9:50. Here are the two verses together:

And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

Jesus simply said that there are Christians who were not among Jesus's disciples. That's it. It doesn't say that everyone who claims to be a Christian is one, just that some people are. It certainly doesn't say that Catholics are Christians. Muslims believe in Christ too, but a quick glance through the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Mohammedans doesn't paint a picture of fellow Christians on the path to salvation. As it shouldn't.

Unfortunately, you Catholics are against us, not for us. There is hope for you, but you need to ask Jesus for help--no saints, no popes, no intermediaries, go straight to the top guy. I guarantee that He will listen without his mother nagging him to help you. Or are you too afraid to deal with God directly?

[Perry1]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

I found this sight very interesting. Its understanding of Catholic faith is off base; however, it is a very good attempt at defining Baptist beliefs. I have been a Baptist for over 35 years.

To truly attack the Catholics one needs to better understand their belief. Most of the posts here concerning Catholicism is incorrect. The Catholic’s fully support the Bible and its reading. A well educated Catholic will know the Bible as well as any Protestant or Baptist. To refute them one needs to not underestimate their knowledge.

I will give you a list of Catholic responses that a Baptist needs to be prepared for.

If the Bible is the sole rule of faith “Sola Scriptura” then what happened to the millions of people that lived prior to scripture being able to be printed and read. Prior to the 1500s very few people had a Bible as only monks copied them and it took them a full year to manually copy just one. Even fewer people could read prior to the 1500s. What happened to these individuals? Did God leave them abandoned? How did they find God without the one source of faith?

One has to be able to define how one knows scripture to be inspired. One cannot just say it is inspired. That response is inadequate. One can not state that the Bible states that it is inspired as that would be circular reasoning. Plus many books do not tell us they are inspired. As they were written separately each would need to state their own inspiration.

Using 2 Timothy 3:16. as proof for Sola Scriptura has problems. First, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. The two verses preceding 2 Timothy 3:16 say: But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. This passage does not refer to the New Testament. In fact, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims.

One also has to be careful of verses like 2 Thess 2:15. “So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” , Or "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2). Catholics will claim that this clearly demonstrates their use of oral tradition is not only acceptable but supported by the Bible. That Sola Scriptura can not be true as the Bible clearly states it is not. Plus as we all know Christ does not even state that his words should be written until the book of Revelations. If the Bible was to be the sole rule of Faith how do we defend that Christ never stated to write down his teachings until the Book of Revelation? Also how do we defend against the fact that the Jewish people were taught orally at that time. The Jewish people only had sporadics book of the Bible in towns and villages. Much of the Bible was orally taught from generation to generation. This is how Christ learned much of the Bible. How do we refute this? How do refute this as both secular and non-secular writings clearly show this to be true? Much of this writing was from the 1st century. How do we refute the Catholics belief in using oral tradition handed down from the Apostles?

Whether we like it or not the Catholics defined the first Bibles. The Jewish people did not attempt to define the Old Testament until after Jesus's death and they lost the right to define old testament writings. The Catholics are the ones that refuted the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans in the fourth century. They also defined the Bible to be 73 books until Luther refuted books from the Old Testament. He largely based this upon a Jewish Council of Javneh that had lost its authority with God as they had already condemned Christ. This also can not be accepted as in Jesus time the Pharisees and Sadducees did not accept the same old Testament writings. The Sadducess only accepting five books of the Bible.

One has to be prepared to refute that the early Christians accepted the deuterocanonicals because they were in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), and that‘s what the apostles used. There are again many secular and non-secular writings at a very early date that shows this as a very plausible point, some as early as the 100s, less than a generation after Christ’s death.

We also can not refute the deutercanicals books based upon them not being quoted in the New Testament because other Old Testament books that we hold as inspired are not quoted. For example Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Nahum to mention a few.

It is also difficult to refute that a disgruntled monk changed the Bible without being inspired. For example he added words to scripture (“only” in Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15, “alone” in Romans 3:28) to support his new doctrine on justification. For us to validate these changes one has to be able to defend that Luther a Lutheran was inspired. Or we will have to negate these words from our translation of the Bible.

What’s more, the fact that Luther accepted the 27 books in his New Testament is a tacit admission that he accepted the authority of the Catholic Church on at least this one issue. After all, it was the Catholic Church that gathered together the books of the New Testament, grasped the Septuagint, and declared them to be the sum of Scripture. Did the Church have such authority? If not, why not add or subtract books from the New Testament as has been done with the Old? For example the gospels listed above.

To be able to adequately defend our Baptist faith one can not attack the Catholics without knowing scripture very well. As it is the only man made institution that has lasted 2,000 years, do not underestimate their knowledge of the Bible and knowledge of history. There are over one billion Catholics in the world. Not all will fall for simple refutations such as I know your priest do not let you read the Bible. Many of them know the Bible very well. Please read and understand the Faith!

[Don the Baptist]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

I found this sight very interesting. Its understanding of Catholic faith is off base; however, it is a very good attempt at defining Baptist beliefs. I have been a Baptist for over 35 years.

To truly attack the Catholics one needs to better understand their belief. Most of the posts here concerning Catholicism is incorrect. The Catholic’s fully support the Bible and its reading. A well educated Catholic will know the Bible as well as any Protestant or Baptist. To refute them one needs to not underestimate their knowledge.

I will give you a list of Catholic responses that a Baptist needs to be prepared for.

If the Bible is the sole rule of faith “Sola Scriptura” then what happened to the millions of people that lived prior to scripture being able to be printed and read. Prior to the 1500s very few people had a Bible as only monks copied them and it took them a full year to manually copy just one. Even fewer people could read prior to the 1500s. What happened to these individuals? Did God leave them abandoned? How did they find God without the one source of faith?

One has to be able to define how one knows scripture to be inspired. One cannot just say it is inspired. That response is inadequate. One can not state that the Bible states that it is inspired as that would be circular reasoning. Plus many books do not tell us they are inspired. As they were written separately each would need to state their own inspiration.

Using 2 Timothy 3:16. as proof for Sola Scriptura has problems. First, it does not speak of the New Testament at all. The two verses preceding 2 Timothy 3:16 say: But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. This passage does not refer to the New Testament. In fact, none of the New Testament books had been written when Timothy was a child. Claiming this verse as authentication for a book that had not been written yet goes far beyond what the text claims.

One also has to be careful of verses like 2 Thess 2:15. “So, then, brethren stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” , Or "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2). Catholics will claim that this clearly demonstrates their use of oral tradition is not only acceptable but supported by the Bible. That Sola Scriptura can not be true as the Bible clearly states it is not. Plus as we all know Christ does not even state that his words should be written until the book of Revelations. If the Bible was to be the sole rule of Faith how do we defend that Christ never stated to write down his teachings until the Book of Revelation? Also how do we defend against the fact that the Jewish people were taught orally at that time. The Jewish people only had sporadics book of the Bible in towns and villages. Much of the Bible was orally taught from generation to generation. This is how Christ learned much of the Bible. How do we refute this? How do refute this as both secular and non-secular writings clearly show this to be true? Much of this writing was from the 1st century. How do we refute the Catholics belief in using oral tradition handed down from the Apostles?

Whether we like it or not the Catholics defined the first Bibles. The Jewish people did not attempt to define the Old Testament until after Jesus's death and they lost the right to define old testament writings. The Catholics are the ones that refuted the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans in the fourth century. They also defined the Bible to be 73 books until Luther refuted books from the Old Testament. He largely based this upon a Jewish Council of Javneh that had lost its authority with God as they had already condemned Christ. This also can not be accepted as in Jesus time the Pharisees and Sadducees did not accept the same old Testament writings. The Sadducess only accepting five books of the Bible.

One has to be prepared to refute that the early Christians accepted the deuterocanonicals because they were in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament), and that‘s what the apostles used. There are again many secular and non-secular writings at a very early date that shows this as a very plausible point, some as early as the 100s, less than a generation after Christ’s death.

We also can not refute the deutercanicals books based upon them not being quoted in the New Testament because other Old Testament books that we hold as inspired are not quoted. For example Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Judges, 1 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Nahum to mention a few.

It is also difficult to refute that a disgruntled monk changed the Bible without being inspired. For example he added words to scripture (“only” in Romans 3:20; Romans 4:15, “alone” in Romans 3:28) to support his new doctrine on justification. For us to validate these changes one has to be able to defend that Luther a Lutheran was inspired. Or we will have to negate these words from our translation of the Bible.

What’s more, the fact that Luther accepted the 27 books in his New Testament is a tacit admission that he accepted the authority of the Catholic Church on at least this one issue. After all, it was the Catholic Church that gathered together the books of the New Testament, grasped the Septuagint, and declared them to be the sum of Scripture. Did the Church have such authority? If not, why not add or subtract books from the New Testament as has been done with the Old? For example the gospels listed above.

To be able to adequately defend our Baptist faith one can not attack the Catholics without knowing scripture very well. As it is the only man made institution that has lasted 2,000 years, do not underestimate their knowledge of the Bible and knowledge of history. There are over one billion Catholics in the world. Not all will fall for simple refutations such as I know your priest do not let you read the Bible. Many of them know the Bible very well. Please read and understand the Faith!

BLASPHEMER! If you were really a Baptist™, you would KNOW that catlickers are all heretics, queers and child molesters. That fish on the head thing was enough to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Compassionant heart]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

I know that no matter what I say I will not convince you that Catholicism is a religion that is no where near what you claim it to be, because your hearts and minds are not willing to see anything but your opinion. But I ask you this: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR! Did you not get this from the Bible, because if you didn't, you must have skipped quite a bit of it. Is their another part of this religion besides just pointing fingers a everyone else. Jesus did not come on Earth to judge others- he dined with sinners, tax collectors, etc. If you truly want to follow Jesus, be compassionant towards others. Jesus died on the cross so that our sins would be forgiven. Jesus did not go the pagans or the prostitutes and say "sorry your going to hell and call them a bunch of names" if he does please share...

[Brother Temperance]

Re: 11 deadly sins of the Catholic Church

I know that no matter what I say I will not convince you that Catholicism is a religion that is no where near what you claim it to be, because your hearts and minds are not willing to see anything but your opinion. But I ask you this: LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR! Did you not get this from the Bible, because if you didn't, you must have skipped quite a bit of it.

Yes, we know all about loving our neighbors. Idolators are not our neighbors.

Is their another part of this religion besides just pointing fingers a everyone else. Jesus did not come on Earth to judge others- he dined with sinners, tax collectors, etc.

2 Timothy 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom.

If you truly want to follow Jesus, be compassionant towards others.

Does that involve scurrying around on the floor and getting trodden on? No thanks.

Jesus died on the cross so that our sins would be forgiven. Jesus did not go the pagans or the prostitutes and say "sorry your going to hell and call them a bunch of names" if he does please share...

Jesus said (Matthew 23):
23 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?


Real polite, eh?